I use that analogy to illustrate that sometimes leaders just have to do what must be done, even if it costs money
And I think that "all of his policies and actions" is a little general. Do you think that any President goes into office thinking, "I'm going to send this country to hell so fast they'll wish they had never elected me!" No... their campaigns are of course their advertisement for what they would like to be able to deliver, but when they get into office they have to deal with the hand they are dealt. I don't think any other President would have been able to get through the last four years without spending some money.
You are attempting to state that all of the spending was done to save the economy so that way the country wouldn't die. Most of his spending was on federal spending, whereas the private sector is what was failing. The 800 billion dollar stimulus package that you said not passing would have been an "big middle finger" to the failing banks, did not give money to the banks. It gave money to the federal government, in hundreds of thousands of bullshit projects. 13% of the 800 billion alone went to the "Office of the inspector general" just so he could oversee the distribution of the money.
When the bill contains things such as "1.6 million for the research and disassembly of ATV vehicles" its not to stimulate the economy. Its to spend money we don't need to spend.
We are talking about 5 trillion dollars in 4 years. The highest spending out of all of the governments. If the spending was to save the economy, eg: he spent the money to keep the biggest companies alive so that way the economy could survive. Yet hes spent trillions on government spending alone, with more then enough money going to projects that shouldn't even exist. At what point does it stop being to save the economy and become wasteful spending? When 16 million goes to "research into alternative currency"?
